Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term "groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the two or does it depend on which side of a "consensus" decision you are on? That is, if an article you wrote/are involved with survives AFD, then it's "consensus", if it gets deleted, it's "groupthink". Of course it's the other way around if it's an article you don't like.
Same with an edit to an active article. If the edit stands, it's "consensus" if it's constantly reverted and your persistence gets you banned by a "rogue admin (tm)", it's "groupthink".
Therefore, I have to wonder if "groupthink", as long as it doesn't lead to an [[Abilene paradox]] might not just be another way of saying "consensus" which can either be good or bad. Good if the "consensus" decision squares with previously established policies, bad if it doesn't.
For me "groupthink" has a particular nasty negative conotation. A dictionary or "wiktionary" might be useful in determining the difference.
Mgm
On 1/29/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term "groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the two or does it depend on which side of a "consensus" decision you are on? That is, if an article you wrote/are involved with survives AFD, then it's "consensus", if it gets deleted, it's "groupthink". Of course it's the other way around if it's an article you don't like.
Same with an edit to an active article. If the edit stands, it's "consensus" if it's constantly reverted and your persistence gets you banned by a "rogue admin (tm)", it's "groupthink".
Therefore, I have to wonder if "groupthink", as long as it doesn't lead to an [[Abilene paradox]] might not just be another way of saying "consensus" which can either be good or bad. Good if the "consensus" decision squares with previously established policies, bad if it doesn't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
For me "groupthink" has a particular nasty negative conotation. A dictionary or "wiktionary" might be useful in determining the difference.
Mgm
I actually have pretty much the same negative connotation with "consensus" after observing some of the ways people use that term on wikipedia. Current use dictates meaning.
Peter Ansell
On 1/29/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term "groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the
"Groupthink" may well be synonymous with "team spirit" or somesuch, but with the opposite connotation.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/29/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term "groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the
"Groupthink" may well be synonymous with "team spirit" or somesuch, but with the opposite connotation.
Steve
Not that I've thought about it a lot, but I associate groupthink with a situation in which any sort of disagreement is discouraged by social pressure. Not so much that differing ideas are "outvoted" by the group, but that the person offering a different idea is ostracized until they conform.
So, for me, groupthink is very different from consensus. However, I do think we see some instances of groupthink in some areas of Wikipedia.
For instance, calling someone a "troll" for (even very persistently) disagreeing is a step in the direction of groupthink.
Just my 2 cents to the thread...
-Rich Holton
Groupthink refers to collective faith in the infallibility of a project, often with disasterous consequences.
nobs01
on 1/28/07 11:41 PM, Rich Holton at richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I associate groupthink with a situation in which any sort of disagreement is discouraged by social pressure. Not so much that differing ideas are "outvoted" by the group, but that the person offering a different idea is ostracized until they conform.
So, for me, groupthink is very different from consensus. However, I do think we see some instances of groupthink in some areas of Wikipedia.
For instance, calling someone a "troll" for (even very persistently) disagreeing is a step in the direction of groupthink.
Just my 2 cents to the thread...
Well said! Your input is worth much more than two cents. And don't forget the presence of the person who decides the flavor of the Kool Aid.
Marc Riddell
On 1/28/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, calling someone a "troll" for (even very persistently) disagreeing is a step in the direction of groupthink.
I would agree if it were a regular poster but if someone pops up out of nowhere and starts opposing the group on one or more issues, then there is a good chance that person is a "troll". A real honest detractor will agree with the group on some issues and disagree on others.
That's the way I saw it on usenet. An honest detractor would have a non-troll posting history in the group in question or at least in other groups. A troll drops out of the sky and starts flaming people.
On 1/30/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
That's the way I saw it on usenet. An honest detractor would have a non-troll posting history in the group in question or at least in other groups. A troll drops out of the sky and starts flaming people.
They don't even have to be a troll. Anyone who joins a new group and immediately starts criticising and telling the group they've got it all wrong is going to be rejected - whether they're right or wrong. Nothing to do with groupthink, it's just normal behaviour.
Steve
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:09:27 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term "groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the two or does it depend on which side of a "consensus" decision you are on? That is, if an article you wrote/are involved with survives AFD, then it's "consensus", if it gets deleted, it's "groupthink". Of course it's the other way around if it's an article you don't like.
It's one of those irregular verbs: we are consensus, you are a baying mob, they are groupthink.
Guy (JzG)
On 29/01/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It's one of those irregular verbs: we are consensus, you are a baying mob, they are groupthink.
Coincidentally enough, I learnt this lovely word from Wikipedia today: [[ochlocracy]].
I would say groupthink is a form of consensus (an undesirable one), but not all consensus is groupthink.
Consensus is (very roughly) general agreement. Everyone agreeing because they're being manipulated to in some underhand way is still everyone agreeing, however there are other ways of reaching such an agreement.
In groupthink, assumptions by error are common. Each member relying on the next member to do his job properly. A system of internal audits, or checks and balances is designed to counter this. The real disasterous consequences occur when the internal regulators get caught up in the same pride the contributing workers are vulnerable to.
nobs01
On 1/29/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
In groupthink, assumptions by error are common. Each member relying on the next member to do his job properly. A system of internal audits, or checks and balances is designed to counter this. The real disasterous consequences occur when the internal regulators get caught up in the same pride the contributing workers are vulnerable to.
Exactly.
Groupthink is when everyone involved assumes that someone else has done XYZ crucial piece of error-checking.
Consensus is when a group of people who have been doing independent analyses come together and find common ground with what they've been presenting.
It's funny; I was learning about groups and the five phases of groupwork and the concept of "groupthink" today in Management...
-----Original Message----- From: nobs03@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Consensus vs "groupthink"
http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/groupthink-and-holocaust-denial-in.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
On 1/29/07, sonofyoungwood@aol.com sonofyoungwood@aol.com sig said:
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Could this (I assume "compulsory") sig be an example of AOL corporate groupthink?
The Cunctator wrote:
Groupthink is when everyone involved assumes that someone else has done XYZ crucial piece of error-checking.
That's very close to my understanding of the term. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm involved in a startup. One of the most frequently mentioned fears is "groupthink", by which we mean mistaking being in accord for being right. As Guy says, though, I usually hear it as a pejorative.
William
On 1/29/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
That's very close to my understanding of the term. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm involved in a startup. One of the most frequently mentioned fears is "groupthink", by which we mean mistaking being in accord for being right. As Guy says, though, I usually hear it as a pejorative.
Actually, that's a specific kind of groupthink called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox.
The article lists the Challenger explosion and Bay of Pigs as examples. The Enron scandal, where "unconsolidated equity affiliates" destroyed 21,000 jobs and how many billions in losses should also qualify. Perhaps the Iraqi war or the House Managers in the Clinton Impeachment are other examples.
nobs01
"Consensus" is what you get when you have a group of people working on things, each independently reaching the same conclusion or being convinced by evidence.
It morphs into "groupthink" when one of two things happens:
- Someone new arrives with new evidence and is attacked for "going against consensus"
- the same "consensus" sits for too long and begins attaining force of "law."
Wikipedia has a problem in this regard. The problem relates to WP:OWN as well as WP:CIVIL, and is a natural consequence of bowing at the altar of "Consensus" to the exclusion of factual accuracy.
The natural progression problem is that the more a small group of editors "tunes" an article to whatever standard, the more they feel they "own" that article, and the more they will actively oppose any other editors (other than the group) working on it. Eventually this transforms into groupthink and abuse towards newcomers becomes common. The smaller the group is, the worse it becomes; the editor who feels himself "creator" of an article, and therefore feels he has "ownership" of it, is the worst of all, but our various POV-pushing cliques on various topics are also good examples; each clique has what it calls a "consensus" which is actually a Groupthink, and feels fully justified in "Punishing" (with admin tools in many cases) anyone who is outside of what they inaccurately claim is "consensus."
The same is true of this mailing list. There are a number of "groupthink items" that are instantly shouted down whenever addressed, often with derisive in-jokes and buzzwords deliberately made and used to make outsiders feel even more confused and rejected.
It's a general Wikipedia cultural attitude problem.
Parker
On 1/28/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing how a few detractors here have been throwing around the term "groupthink" I have to ask, is there any real difference between the two or does it depend on which side of a "consensus" decision you are on? That is, if an article you wrote/are involved with survives AFD, then it's "consensus", if it gets deleted, it's "groupthink". Of course it's the other way around if it's an article you don't like.
Same with an edit to an active article. If the edit stands, it's "consensus" if it's constantly reverted and your persistence gets you banned by a "rogue admin (tm)", it's "groupthink".
Therefore, I have to wonder if "groupthink", as long as it doesn't lead to an [[Abilene paradox]] might not just be another way of saying "consensus" which can either be good or bad. Good if the "consensus" decision squares with previously established policies, bad if it doesn't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/31/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
"Consensus" is what you get when you have a group of people working on things, each independently reaching the same conclusion or being convinced by evidence.
It morphs into "groupthink" when one of two things happens:
- Someone new arrives with new evidence and is attacked for "going against
consensus"
- the same "consensus" sits for too long and begins attaining force of
"law."
Wikipedia has a problem in this regard. The problem relates to WP:OWN as well as WP:CIVIL, and is a natural consequence of bowing at the altar of "Consensus" to the exclusion of factual accuracy.
The natural progression problem is that the more a small group of editors "tunes" an article to whatever standard, the more they feel they "own" that article, and the more they will actively oppose any other editors (other than the group) working on it. Eventually this transforms into groupthink and abuse towards newcomers becomes common. The smaller the group is, the worse it becomes; the editor who feels himself "creator" of an article, and therefore feels he has "ownership" of it, is the worst of all, but our various POV-pushing cliques on various topics are also good examples; each clique has what it calls a "consensus" which is actually a Groupthink, and feels fully justified in "Punishing" (with admin tools in many cases) anyone who is outside of what they inaccurately claim is "consensus."
The same is true of this mailing list. There are a number of "groupthink items" that are instantly shouted down whenever addressed, often with derisive in-jokes and buzzwords deliberately made and used to make outsiders feel even more confused and rejected.
It's a general Wikipedia cultural attitude problem.
Parker
This is typically how it works: one dissenter or critical thinker points out "X job is not being done properly"; the "concensus" interprets this to mean, "Joe, the member who performs X job, is being attacked". By cencensus then, the critical dissenter is marginalized and demonized, while the problem of the work product -- which is a totally valid criticism exposed by critical thinking -- is ignored.
nobs01